By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In celebration of Microsoft’s 50th anniversary, Bill Gates has released the original Altair BASIC source code, a 157-page PDF of scanned documents from 1975. Inspired by Popular Electronics’ Altair 8800 feature, Gates and Paul Allen, lacking the necessary hardware, created a BASIC interpreter using a PDP-10 mainframe, simulating the Altair’s Intel 8080 chip. This foundational code, built over two months with Monte Davidoff, represents Microsoft’s origins before its iconic products and is available for viewing, though not readily usable by modern tools. The release offers a historical glimpse into the company’s humble beginnings.
Read the original article here
Bill Gates’ release of Microsoft’s original source code has sparked a flurry of reactions, ranging from nostalgic reminiscing to cynical skepticism. The initial response highlights the impracticality of the released PDF. It’s so rudimentary that even sophisticated AI language models struggle to extract usable text, rendering it largely inaccessible for practical purposes.
The code itself, described as a BASIC interpreter, evokes memories of the early days of computing. This release, some speculate, may have been timed to coincide with the expiration of relevant statutes of limitations on any potential legal issues within the code. The excitement around this release, however, is quickly tempered by a wish for the release of more contemporary code, such as that for current Windows versions. The suggestion to release the source code for Clippy, Microsoft’s infamous Office assistant, adds a touch of playful irony to the conversation.
The perceived lack of practical utility of the released code is a common theme. Many commenters point out its age and obsolescence. The connection to early versions of MS-DOS and the Altair BASIC is made, painting a picture of a bygone era of computing. The discussion quickly drifts into broader critiques of Microsoft’s business practices, alleging that prioritizing profit over progress stifled technological advancement for decades.
The release is framed by some as a publicity stunt, a way for Bill Gates to remain in the public eye. The comparison to Warren Buffett further fuels this narrative, highlighting the perceived self-serving nature of the release rather than a genuine contribution to the open-source community. The ethical concerns regarding accessing proprietary code without authorization are also raised, underscoring the legal complexities involved. The discussion emphasizes the historical significance of the code, viewing it as a valuable artifact for preserving the history of microcomputers, despite its limited practical use today. The analogy to a fork from the Titanic illustrates this point perfectly – historically interesting, but not useful in modern life.
The focus then shifts to the technical aspects of the code. The intricate layers of modern Microsoft authentication systems are described as a stark contrast to the simplicity of the early BASIC interpreter. The comments highlight the vulnerability and complexity of modern software, contrasting it with the relative simplicity (and arguably, security) of the older code. An amusing anecdote involving the creation of early MS Agents, the software behind Clippy, shows how these simple tools were once used creatively, including integrating voice control and text-to-speech capabilities years before similar features became commonplace.
The ongoing debate touches on the motives behind the release, questioning whether it’s a genuine act of historical preservation, a publicity play, or something else entirely. Some defend Bill Gates, pointing to his philanthropic efforts and suggesting that this release is simply a passion project for a history enthusiast. The vast scale of his charitable giving is cited as evidence against accusations of self-promotion. The conversation also brings up the contrasting approaches to AI regulation between the US and China.
Finally, the thread concludes with a reflection on the internet’s increasingly complicated landscape. Concerns are raised about the potential for bot activity and the challenge of discerning genuine contributions from manipulative schemes. The closing comments circle back to the origins of the code, the “Book of Code,” hinting at the laborious manual process of entering code in the early days of programming, a stark contrast to modern development environments. The entire discussion highlights the multifaceted nature of this seemingly simple event, showcasing a range of opinions and perspectives from technical details to broader social and economic contexts.